This doesn't go far enough:

What in heaven or on earth, gives anyone a right to control others who live 100's if not 1000's of kilometres away?!

Well said, David.

I would expect the Greens, at least, to do the right thing and back you on this.

<<If we are not free to end our lives, with assistance if necessary, then we are not free at all.>>

David, in terms of Australia, most Australians are always free, most of the time. I can dance under the stars..... I can walk on a foodpath..... I can go shopping.... and there I thousands of other things I could list here, that I can freely do.

If people want to end their life in 2017, they are free to do so by themselves, with no asistance required.

If one is able to take on such a practice themselves (which you call assisted suicide), but then add the term 'free' into the debate is a contradiction in terms.

Personally, I am totally against any type of suicide or euthanasia for a range of reasons (particularly as neither is voluntary) and I would recommend, that if someone feels in any form that their life in unstable or in a mode of concern that they get professional help or advice.

Nathan J makes sense.
I think euthanasia is a conspiracy by the medical fraternity to increase their riches, (which already are obscene by community standards) and wrest control of all medical conditions able to be exploited for profit, not currently captured.

Where is the reference to our current astronomical suicide rate in Australia? Seems Australians are quite successful at it without outside help, thanks Doc!

Risible rubbish David! Euthanasia is practised daily in many large urban hospitals as compassionate pain management, And that is where the law needs to change to keep pace with common practise. So that compassion isn't tried as murder.

Hospitals are the only place for end of life pain management. Not in the home as treatment for clinical depression, relatively easily dealt with through effective clinical treatment, not smuggled bootleg self pity? So you've driven the kids and the friends away and think topping yourself will teach all those ingrates a lesson?

Again we have a we know best elitist instructing the rubes, in what opinion they should have? Given they're just not smart enough to reach their own considered opinion, then own their own behavior!

By the way, if you come across one of those, broken english two liners, with no bearing whatsoever on the topic? Under no circumstances should you click on the accompanying link, unless you want to download a keylogging trojan? And kill the computer/cause it to commit Hari Kari.
Alan B.

David - what do you think of this latest case from the Netherlands?

NETHERLANDS, January 31, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – A Dutch doctor who forcibly euthanized an elderly woman without her consent "acted in good faith," a euthanasia oversight panel decided when it cleared her of wrongdoing. The chairman of that panel has expressed hope that the case will go to court – not so the doctor can be prosecuted, but so a court can set a precedent on how far doctors may go in such cases.

This particular case was sent to the Regional Review Committee, which oversees the country's liberal euthanasia regime.

The woman, who was over 80, had dementia. She had allegedly earlier requested to be euthanized when "the time was right" but in her last days expressed her desire to continue living.

Nevertheless, her doctor put a sedative in the patient's coffee. The doctor then enlisted the help of family members to hold the struggling, objecting patient down so that she could administer the lethal injection.

"I am convinced that the doctor acted in good faith, and we would like to see more clarity on how such cases are handled in the future," Committee Chairman Jacob Kohnstamm said. Taking the case to court would be "not to punish the doctor, who acted in good faith and did what she had to do, but to get judicial clarity over what powers a doctor has when it comes to the euthanasia of patients suffering from severe dementia."

"Hospitals are the only place for end of life pain management."
Alan B.

Not so. My late partner who ultimately died in hospital, because that was her wish, had her pain quite successfully managed at home by very competent palliative care nurses, assisted by myself. In fact, from my observation, pain management in hospitals leaves a bit to be desired, they wait for the pain to develop and then treat it, whereas the palliative care providers aim to keep ahead of it. Not all hospitals have specialist palliative care doctors.

David

Yes David, if you say so. And no doubt there some CCTV backing your claims?

That said, we have hospitals with no doctors, let alone, specialists in palliative care and in some cases, towns without hospitals or doctors even.

None of which changes the status quo, or makes the publicity seeking Senator's case for him.
Alan B.

No one has addressed this part of David's article.

"But the people of the NT and ACT are denied any chance to pursue their own democratic approach.

I have a bill in the federal parliament that would overturn the Andrews bill and allow the parliaments of the territories to come to their own conclusions about assisted suicide. I'll be pushing this bill hard this year. Those in favour of assisted suicide will support my bill, but I am also seeking support from those who oppose assisted suicide but nonetheless believe the territories should be free to debate and amend their own laws"

Discuss.

The good Senator remains free to top himself anytime he chooses, and with an eaten weapon of his choice?

Say a seven shot lever action adler, just to be sure he has enough gun and an extra two shells if first five fail? We need assisted suicide like a hole in the head, always providing there's something up there large enough to accommodate the suggested target practise?

Afterward we can play hide the pea under the shell?
Alan B.

.

Dear NathanJ.,

.

You wrote :

« … most Australians are always free, most of the time. I can dance under the stars..... I can walk on a foodpath..... I can go shopping.... and there I thousands of other things I could list here, that I can freely do … Personally, I am totally against any type of suicide or euthanasia for a range of reasons (particularly as neither is voluntary) and I would recommend, that if someone feels in any form that their life in unstable or in a mode of concern that they get professional help or advice »
.

As I am a total stranger to you, Nathan, I know absolutely nothing about you, your life, or your motivations. Who am I to judge if you were justified or not in committing suicide or seeking euthanasia if you were to do so ?

Only those who have had similar experiences to yours could really understand.

The best I could do would be to use my faculty of reason and my propensity for empathy before forming an opinion.

I am intrigued by your affirmation that “for a range of reasons” you (like “most Australians”) are “free … most of the time” but that neither suicide nor euthanasia are “voluntary” acts. Forced? Accidental?

Perhaps you consider them to be “compulsive” acts, acts that are irrational and contrary to one's will. But, if so, how do you explain such a “compulsion” ? Is it not a natural instinct ? The ultimate natural defence against unbearable suffering ?

I am also intrigued that you are “against any type of suicide or euthanasia for a range of reasons” – only !

Apparently, there is no room for “empathy” in your approach, or, if there is, you make no mention of it. Perhaps, that is the clue to your position on suicide and euthanasia.

I am not suggesting that you might possibly be suffering from any sort of mental disorder but I think the following article sheds some light on different degrees of empathy in different people :

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/260005231_Dissociating_the_ability_and_propensity_for_empathy

.

.

Dear diver dan,

.

You wrote :

« I think euthanasia is a conspiracy by the medical fraternity to increase their riches, (which already are obscene by community standards) and wrest control of all medical conditions able to be exploited for profit, not currently captured »
.

That’s a sweeping statement that’s not worthy of you, diver dan. I’m sure you know better than that. There are surely some rogues whom I consider to be dangerous criminals among the private sector healthcare providers but not so in the public sector.
.

You then remarked :

« Where is the reference to our current astronomical suicide rate in Australia? Seems Australians are quite successful at it without outside help, thanks Doc! »
.

That’s not worthy of you either. The object of euthanasia is simply to provide the means of a calm, peaceful and painless death, preferably in a warm, cosy environment – not to increase the national suicide rate or render it more “successful”.

As a matter of fact, the suicide rate has decreased in Switzerland, which is the only country in the world that practices full “assisted suicide”, not just euthanasia for the terminally ill. The relevant legislation was introduced in 1937 but it was not until the 1980s that it was implemented by setting up assisted suicide agencies, which are now thriving.

A referendum in the Canton of Zurich in 2011 confirmed overwhelming support for the practice.
.

Dear Is Mise,

You wrote :

« I have a bill in the federal parliament that would … allow the parliaments of the territories to come to their own conclusions about assisted suicide »

I was unaware of your legislative activity in the federal parliament and heartily approve of your initiative. In fact, I doubly approve of it. I approve assisted suicide because it is not imposed on anybody but simply an option offered to those who seek it of their own free will. I also approve of it because I consider that the Australian territories should be free to debate and amend their own laws.

.

Banjo,

"marks" are commonly used to denote a quotation, in fact that's where they get their name from.

.

Literary licence, Is Mise ...

.

Nathan J I am with you completely. I am fast approaching stage three of MS (completely unable to walk etc) and am furious that people
are still debating euthanasia. It's been going on for years ... forever even, without legislation so why change things? I, personally have no desire to be killed by 'assisted suicide', IF I want it (suicide) I'll find a way and not implicate others. It's MY decision and being of sound mind and able to be rational (although at the moment I am very angry), I am able to make that decision. The very small minority that can't make that decision, are not going to be effected by an assisted suicide law. It's no fun living with progressive MS but it's MY MS and I will live with it. I won it, I'll wear it. My children know what I will accept when my end is getting closer and as long as I am 'comfortable' life will go on.

Life is an experience and my death will be a life experience for my children.

Banjo Paterson,

<<neither suicide nor euthanasia are “voluntary” acts>>

This is simple, because if someone did not have any feeling towards suicide or a medical condition or be in any position that would want themselves to undertake either activity, or a desire to do so, a person would not take either action in any form.

So if these two elements, that being euthanasia or suicide, become a spectrum in a person's life, where a person feels that such a need is required they will have:

1. With euthanasia, a person is in a position of feeling that a person should or must go through the process of euthanasia or face the possibility of abuse for those who provide no consent, like the elderly;

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/health/rapid-rise-in-elderly-falling-foul--of-greedy-relatives-lawyers/news-story/8b360dd4fce1f1719ab7119a0c5d528e

and

2. With suicide, a person is in a position where their mindset is likely to be at a level to which suicide is to occur, where any movement against such movement is unlikely, except if someone else was to take some type of affirmative action, which is unlikely to be in place at the time of a suicide.

I still remember the time, a few years ago when I saw a picture of my local GP and story in my local newspaper which described the fact he had committed suicide. As a person with five medical conditions myself, the issue of life and death, is not something to be cheaply addressed or written off, by people such as Senator David Leyonhjelm (who to my knowledge has no medical qualifications), nor does it mean I am unsympathetic towards others.

.

Dear NathanJ,

.

Thank you for your explanations but I am having difficulty understanding exactly what it is you are saying.

The link you provided to the article in theaustralian.com will not open for me as I do not subscribe to that newspaper.

However, I see from the wording of the link that it has to do with “ … rapid rise of elderly falling foul of greedy relatives lawyers/news story …”.

That provides an indication of what your first point is about.

Your second point seems to be that you are concerned that proper medical assistance for a calm, peaceful and painless death “may not be in place at the time of suicide”.

I’m sorry if I have not correctly understood you.

All I can say is that, if my interpretations are correct, then I share your concerns and agree that it is of paramount importance that every effort should be made to eliminate the risk of vulnerable people falling victim to the malevolent influence of ill-intentioned persons in their entourage.

Also, it is more than likely that many of those who see no solution to their problems, apart from ending their lives, may change their minds on receiving competent, on-going assistance from somebody who cares. Professional assistance, provided with delicacy and tact, is a necessary prerequisite - but should not be a barrier - to any decision on euthanasia.

The ill and suffering must, of course, continue to have full, unrestricted access to the best available professional palliative care at all times, irrespective of whether they are candidates for euthanasia or assisted suicide.

As for your second point, the sooner both become legal the better, as it will allow the 3 000+ people who commit suicide every year in Australia to have access to a calm, peaceful and painless death in a warm, cosy environment.

Today, they are left with no other choice but to have recourse, alone with their solitude and in a terrible state of despair, to the most barbaric, inhuman and expeditious methods in order to carry out their macabre enterprise.

.

Banjo Paterson,

<<As for your second point, the sooner both become legal the better, as it will allow the 3 000+ people who commit suicide every year in Australia to have access to a calm, peaceful and painless death in a warm, cosy environment.>>

That is exactly the problem. Too many people, not associated with medical practice, or have no experience in the field, are emotionally attracted to movements such as euthanasia or certain types of suicide. Such viewpoints are not based on facts, evidence or future predictions.

Warm, cosy environments are not what healthcare is for with medical conditions. It is simply a move towards reducing the impact of a medical condition on the individual.

One also has to take into consideration the needs of medical specialists, nurses, doctors and others who work within the medical sector.

For example, those who work in the sector are being to court by making a mistake for example. There are cases in Australia, where lawyers get involved (pro-bono) representing clients without thinking about the impacts on the wider population in terms of service provision. Families and patients affected also get taken in (from feelings of anger or regret) and the want of money. Money doesn't save or bring back lives - and then don't forget the immediate Coroner's inquests.

Each person also has very complex needs and requirements, re healthcare. I know having to go through seven years of medication trials to find alternative medications for Epilepsy, after finding a Epilepsy medication had given me a bone density condition, which I'm now going through a recovery process for. Now with five medical conditions, each evening I have to take around 10 medications before I go to bed (and when I get up) and every morning I cannot eat for 30 minutes, due to fasting.

So, suicide and euthanasia, simply don't provide answers to many health conditions or address future predictions, like legal action. That's why I don't accept David Leyonhjelm's argument, as it is simplistically based on the philosophy of the Liberal Democrats.

.

Dear NathanJ,

.

You conclude :

« … suicide and euthanasia, simply don't provide answers to many health conditions or address future predictions, like legal action »
.

That’s true, Nathan, but suicide and euthanasia are not designed to “provide answers” to health conditions. Their object is to terminate an individual’s life.

People commit suicide for various personal reasons. Many may be in perfectly good health. Some of them are quite young. According to the most recent statistics, in 2014, suicide was the leading cause of death of children between 5 and 17 years of age in Australia.

Those who benefit from euthanasia in our major hospitals are terminally ill, suffering from an incurable disease in its final stages. So-called “passive” euthanasia is the act of allowing the patient to die peacefully to avoid further suffering. Whereas “active” euthanasia is provoking the end or life (by administering drugs) for the same purpose.

Life and death are two sides of the same coin as there is no life without death and now death without life. I consider that both are fundamental human rights. Everybody has the right to decide if he wishes to live or die. Nobody should have the right to decide for him unless he specifically authorises somebody to do so if circumstances are such that he is unable to do so himself.

It is important that this fundamental human right is respected. It is the duty of society to ensure that it is. That is where the law, justice, coroners and lawyers etc. become involved.

Perhaps you might like to check-out the national statistics relating to suicide on the following link :

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/3303.0~2014~Main%20Features~Method%20of%20Intentional%20self-harm~10053

.

'Why would he do this to us?'

97.3FM presenter Robin Bailey says the fallout from her husband's suicide 12 months ago has been "catastrophic". September 1st, 2015

http://www.smh.com.au/video/video-news/video-qld-news/why-would-he-do-this-to-us-20150901-42061

.

Dear leoj,

.

Thanks for that interesting testimony.

It just goes to show you that you can live beside somebody for a good part of your life and you think you know them inside out, but you don’t.

My brother’s wife walked out on him and the kids without any warning the day after their elder daughter’s 18th birthday. He had no idea there was a problem. They lived on the Darling Downs in Queensland. My brother had to bring up the kids alone.

Some years later, a lawyer friend of mine in Sydney came home after work one evening and found the house completely empty. No wife, no kids and not a single thing in the house, no furniture, nothing. He had to sit on the floor. He was absolutely flabbergasted. He had had no warning there was anything wrong.

He managed to catch up with the kids some years later but never saw his wife again.

97.3FM presenter Robin Bailey’s testimony reminds me of my mother-in-law. On returning to Paris (where I live) after a weekend in the country, she told my wife and I that she was worried sick that we might have an accident driving back on the autoroute. I was quite touched by her concern. Then she exclaimed: “What on earth would happen to me if you both got killed ? Have you ever thought of that ?” She was a widow and in her 80s at the time and my wife was her only child. I thought she was worried about us.

I had lunch with an old colleague from work here in Paris just before Christmas and he told me sadly that he lost his wife in July. He said when he woke up in the morning he found his wife sitting in the car parked in the garden. She was dead. That’s all he said and by the look on his face I knew I shouldn’t ask any questions. I didn’t and he didn’t offer any explanations. We talked about something else.

Human nature is complex.

.

Banjo Paterson,

Firstly you did not answer my point re future predictions. This includes legal action and the pressures of Coroner's investigations. Such Coroner inquests are usually critical towards those in the medical sector, to send a message that faults within the medical sector are not acceptable.

Of course these people are usually not Doctors or people with medical experience, so they can easily make such comments, (or essentially be armchair critics) without realising the working hours and responsibility those in the medical sector take on.

In terms of legal action or matters, some doctors and medical specialists no longer provide services, with investigations needed (to get change in place) to prevent such action.

"Legal proceedings have been commenced or recommended against neurologists whose patients have been involved in motor vehicle accidents." (re recommendations given on drivers licence approval).

http://www.epilepsy-society.org.au/resources/driving-guidelines.asp

Further movements, will likely lead to those in the medical sector potentially walk away, from assisting patients in some areas.

This is a serious issue as at present, as I would argue those who work in the medical sector are some of the most respected individuals in Australia - and this must be protected. I take this view, (very strongly) as I have dealt with the best medical and health experts in Australia at major hospitals.

Legislation for euthanasia in 2016 in South Australia, was voted down, via a casting vote in the lower house by the Speaker Michael Atkinson. I listened to interviews from members of parliament on ABC radio, who were putting forward bills to see the matter progress further. Being a conscience vote, I heard the answers provided to questions and they were very poor which reflected the poor quality of the legislation.

Finally, if matters involving any type of assisted suicide or euthanasia are a human right, a person can undertake that right themselves. Such movements forced onto doctors, nurses, specialists and others though working in the medical sector, seeing a strong reputation and ability to provide a service impacted upon, is not a human right, as it is something forced onto these individuals via legislation.

Banjo Paterson,

Thanks for the comments and examples.

I don't know what the answer is.

However I would not thank anyone for keeping me alive if I was completely paralysed, for example.

.

Dear NathanJ,

.

Sorry, I'm a bit tied up right now. I'll try to get back to you tomorrow.

.

.

Dear NathanJ,

.

You wrote :

« Firstly, you did not answer my point re future predictions. This includes legal action and the pressures of Coroner's investigations. Such Coroner inquests are usually critical towards those in the medical sector, to send a message that faults within the medical sector are not acceptable »

In my opinion, Nathan, competent medical practitioners and service providers have nothing to fear from coroners’ investigations and criticisms. It is only the incompetent, careless and irresponsible ones who have something to fear.

So far as hospitals are concerned, it is the poor management that has something to fear. The good, competent managers who have set-up proper procedures and effective controls to ensure that those procedures are scrupulously respected, have nothing to fear either.

If, as seems to be the case, you have in mind particular medical staff who carry out their professions competently and conscientiously, please be assured that they have nothing to fear and reassure them accordingly.

Nevertheless, it is estimated that 18,000 people in Australia, die every year as a result of medical error, while 50,000 people suffer a permanent injury.

It is also estimated that 200,000 infections are caught by patients in Australian hospitals each year. These have serious consequences, including repeat surgery or even fatalities – as well as costing Australia $1bn a year.

The problem is world-wide. It is even worse in the US:

Approximately 40,000 harmful and/or lethal hospital errors occur each and every day in the US. According to the most recent report by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), hospital-acquired infections affect one in 25 patients. In 2011, an estimated 722,000 patients contracted an infection during a stay in an acute care hospital in the US, and about 75,000 of them died as a result of it.

It is understandable that the victims’ families find this situation totally unacceptable and seek to bring the medical profession to account for it and to implement appropriate measures to avoid it reoccurring.

Here are the links to my sources :

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2013/s3778256.htm

http://www.choice.com.au/health-and-body/hospitals-and-medical-procedures/medical-treatments/articles/surviving-hospital-infections

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/04/09/hospital-acquired-infections.aspx

.